tv [untitled] February 23, 2011 3:00am-3:30am PST
i'm here is a the chair of american water resource foundation. i'm going to talk about a report done that's fundamentally the best resource any water manager could have right now. many of us have too much to read and someone said here's a 3 hundred page thing and this is called primer. i actually read it, 65 pages and it has a very detailed cd. what this starts is how many of us can tell us the fundamentals of climate and weather change. most of us, one man? then you don't need to read this. the fundamentals of that we learn listening to the radio or watching the weather man and that's not good enough for us because we have to learn the hand gauge because we don't want to sit around feeling
unnerved when someone says sea levels can go 25 feet. that's not where leaders take others. we have to know what's real and in the range of possibility. so this report is the best primer on what is effective climate. secondly, we all here about the poles shrinking in antarctica, based on this you see they play a bigger roll with respect to water and reflection from the sun. there are things you need to know. we don't need fearful people. many of us are managers that make hard decisions in investments we need to be empowered and knowledgeable. this looks at a state of the
art of what's fake, real , fact or fiction about global warming. we have to make up indecisions, it may go 25 feet but some of us won't be here in 150 years. we have to know what's available to us in the next 25 years so you have to get in your mind the range of possibilities. finally the worst thing we can do and i'm a general manager of a water district, is to believe we are not going to have to build this investment because we could flip the switch and the trends we see will continue from ten to 20 years. you understand that? we're not going back to our customers and say we're going to do greenhouse emissions and do things to stop it. first of all, we don't control
the whole world, we can only do what we can do and that's a lot since five percent of the world produced most of the greenhouse e mibss but there's an economic move in japan and china and their moving forward but we can look back and say, tom i heard this morning say if it goes up a foot we have to and we're going to have to start educating the customers and people we serve. it's another problem that's here to stay and we are going to have to make the investment. message number one. number two, the state and a question i heard. what about the delta, what do we do if we don't know where to
go. my agency represent as hundred percent of our supply in the delta. that does not mean we have sat back waiting for the delta to be improved. we have spent more than a billion have to diversify but with the aspects that lester talked about we're going to have to invest in the delta in a way that creates adoptibility and what i call a, two for example. or we could have a katrina type event when it hits. if we don't invest in levies and improve meant on the water supply can in fact be the cork in the bottle when the global
warming raises the sea level. i listened to a professor the other day that's chair to one of the groups that talked about what levy groups ought to be. the levies on the west side are not worth saving because their big islands and i raised my hand and i said so the delta will become salt water and what are you going to say to the species and the people that live there because that's salt water. we can't all go into silos. those are levies for water quality. we have to integrate and adopt. lesters program. everybody talks about robust and adaptive. i will tell you the programs we invest in, we'll get fired if we under invest the point of
the matter is we have to invest in something. we filled our first waste water plant. you build one that sat there waiting for the population you would get fired and that thes terminology we have to use. we invest the things to day that become the solution for tomorrow and the state has the resources now and probably in about a year or a year and a half we can't do more studies we have to move on action steps not only for the global warming but the endangers species questions nor owe and we can make those decisions and i don't fear them because i think we have good enough engineers and solutions and coupled with what lester concluded with, we have to get a level on thecs 2
gas emissions. i don't care if people are worried about global warming or not. you can get them into arguments. while we're doing some thing about it it's going to be more volatile and cause problems. what am i doing? i started say we live and everything we get in the delta but we spend a billion dollars to build a reservoir it spiked rates but we thought it was a right thing to do. we're part of a de salinization and we're now going to spend another hundred million dollars in moving. the delta is getting saltier and we think that will be a trend that's moving and particularly with some of the run off patterns so we'll invest in that. our 50 year water supply program. we will be 7 hundred thousand
people whether we want to or not we were 3 hundred thousand. one of the fastest growing areas in north california. we're serving less water than we were when i got there. that's corner stone of our growth. anybody that does not know what that means what that means with respect to drought or any emergency you may have is not playing with affair deck. when you harden the demand you must have flexibility. our reservoir is not one for supply. people are taking shots at that. it was built as a water quality salt reservoir and a fish asset and some people said it's appose tear child for bad storage. and they said it's exactly off stream storage that uses peak demands in an area effects by
issues today. there's diversity kabs and the keys for our future. so if i can get you to do nothing else i would like you to read this because i consider it a very significant primer for anybody that has to deal with this and stay with adaptive management and the state has the resources now if we think broadly on how to invest them and you have had excellent managers talk to you about the consistent directions in which we're going. thank you. >> well that was terrific panel and i've been told we have until fifty five after for q and a and we'll start over here. >> thank you i'm from the
planning and cancer vabs league. i have two questions from or for director snow. you mentioned it's difficult to get the water community to understand global warming and we're happy to work with you in that process to help with that are you planning on including climate change in your next state water project so that everyone? this room under stands what they should face as they start so to make the decision. the second thing is with, ab 32 one of the first parts is the adoption of the initial action and we've heard from the governor that he's very interested in having all state agencies things that can be implemented by 2010 to reduce the carbon imprints and we
strongly recommend the california you are bin water councils management practices. and what sort of things is,dwr, looking for to initialize those actions. i was trying think of the questions. but let me clarify my point. since up imup here about how their not paying attention, actually i think their paying a lot of attention. did i do better. my point there was when you talk about the california water community it's thousands and thousands of people all spread across the state in terms of
what we're doing to integrate why mate change one is to make it a major part of the california update where we're already geared up to do it and the other is distribution under prop, 84 and we'll have workshops on how we can make this climate issue a preference or some sort of incentive of prop, 84 to get it in play there. in terms of governors matrix. we've already evaluated the carbon footprint to look at our issues there obviously we have a lot of hydro and some information i got this week,
our portion of the carbon footprint is one half of one percent so we're looking at that issue to see what we can do with our power portfolio to manage that better and we have all those cues so we hope we can do that to have our people invest. >> if i might follow up is what are you telling your contractors about future reliability from the current system, setting a side whether we proceed with strategic growth plan. we actually issue as major climate report. the one that there's a copy orca think or can hold up showing a ten percent of reduction due to water supply. that assumes no water management reaction. it assumes none of the things
those bills were passed. we're very lucky in that we're unique in our region we have a regional water agency and a regional planning agency and that's been much'ier than in some areas of california that may have had multiple planning and water agencies dealing with issues and also has helped us enormously as we move forward in integrated plan again with the county of san die ago and the water authority and so forth. our integrated plan effort has actually gone relatively smoothly and flood control and waist control and water supply and we're with the agencies in
our region. >> question on this side of the room? >> thanks. environmental defense. question for wally and less tear your water guys and delta guys. do you think there's development going on in the delta in flood prone areas that should not be prevented and if so what do you plan to do about it? >> most of it's going on in my water district. >> absolutely the issue of local development i don't believe can be dealt with locally. i think there's no way you can tell rural city councils or supervisors when a developer comes in and says your town will have a library, a town house, a new school, parks and
let us build five thousand homes below the flood level it's going to happen. i heard will talk about how it's not going to change until probably they can't get insurance. what i happen to believe what's going on and you may i don't know, the question is a good one but the an is i don't believe. your talking to elected officials they can't develop land.
last year we ended up with odds not only with the building industry of california but also the legal cities and county organizations not wanting us to interfere and we think we have a different relationship this year and we want to continue to push the issue of land use plans and processes not just some ste rile plan on a shelf.
fully use this and even more importantly disclose those kinds of things as they proceed to develop properly. one issue is when we issue grants from onee and 84 to perhaps flood jurisdiction we want the local land use that protects that to adopt a formal flood risk associated with it. very controversial but that fight is not over. >> all right. over on this side in the back, yes. >> i'm laura lee from the san francisco chamber of commerce. i have two questions. one your welcome to ignore and answer the second one. the first one is, this conversation today seems apposed to issue about draining
hetchhetchy. if you could assure me somewhere in your plan that you've taken into consideration the whole terrorist about and through all of your water storage that the issue is undercontrol. >> jean, you want to - i mean,maurine, i believe seattle wants to talk about that. >> chuck ought to handle that one. >> i really do.
>> go for it. how about the second part of that question. the terrorist. >> an issue of homeland security we've all had to do assessments and make improvements so almost - i can't think of a major water utility that's been dealing with this. our approach has been one using technology primarily and they've invested heavily for us to use? lieu of some of the initial reproaches but i think the water industry as a whole has been a remarkable job and
there's also and,isac, program where we can share with each other. >> you painted a great picture of a diversified important foal quo is that in part o protect against events as well. >> more related to high ydraulic issue but i think the effort the water agencies have made since 1911 have been markable and i think we're one of the more secure utilities or areas as a result. obviously there's the converging but it does not mean just because you have a concern or risk you don't move ahead. you analyze the risk and the potential impacts and then make informed de sibs and that's what all of the agencies are doing and certainly security is
a piece of that risk assessment. >> are you folks in the northwest looking at that differently. >> we went to spending nothing to five million on capitol expenditures. we did cop stuff for reservoirs primarily with insure answers. but yew done your best job to look at where your vulnerabilities are and make reasonable investment of addressinging those through technology and visibility and a whole number of things but that end of the day we cannot assure you over a dedicated person from a terrorist perspective can do. its the reality.
i think we're all making best decisions we can and to be honest none of us wants to deal with answering questions if you haven't so i think there's not or lots of energies to make appropriate investments. >> let's go right here in the middle. [inaudible] >> i'm impressed with the long change seeing of sea level rising have you wrestled with how future [inaudible] future
droughts could be worse and did you add to that. >> some of it looks at tree rings or hydraulic records. there's pretty scary stories inside the trees. who wants to take it? >> i think we've done a pretty substantial job with diversifying it in mind. theirwnpst, low moted in bay area if there's a drought on the bay area there's something with reflect to security issue asked. almost everything,maurine, i got resentment issues with him with rain and watershed. this is not looking down the road if you think about what
we're saying which is you look at 40 years but today is what's going to tap right in front of us so 76, 77 scenario is probably in everybody's planning. the state require as submitle every five or six years how your making your investments and planning for it. it's not look long and plan today. >> i think we're more concerned about drought scenarios than year to year water supply. we have had tree rings and decade shifts in with tear shifts and so the australians have done a lot of work with the back to back droughts and
they are now experiencing them so we're working with them on drought and run some risk consequence models to see what kind of investment does that mean. our problem is we get a hundred years of rain and then if you don't have long-term supply all the sudden you're in really a lot of trouble if you have not dealt with the drought consequences issues. >> portland is the same. we're supply limited the study does not suggest we have significant but they would come with intensive frequency but i think we would be interested in some of the direction chuck has suggested in our short record because it's very short. >> all right. i think this may be the last question.